Devi and her fellow vigilantes are a sign of how bad things can be for women in India — Banda natives say it's no surprise that women have resorted to violence to combat discrimination. But it's also a sign that things may be improving, that after generations of second-class status, Indian women are taking unprecedented social power.

They have a lot to fight against. Though prenatal gender testing and gender-selective abortion are now illegal in India, having a baby girl is still widely considered shameful, and over 10 million baby girls have been killed in the last 20 years. Only 798 girls were born in Punjab last year for every 1,000 boys. Because of dowry requirements, many families think of girls as a financial liability, and stories of women being abused are common. The problem isn't confined to poor areas like Banda — Delhi pediatrician Mitu Khurana is taking legal action against her husband and his family for trying to force her to abort her twin girls. "Even as an educated woman," she says, "I am pushed around."

The Times of India, however, tells a different story. According to an article called "Macho girls!," "women in every sphere have come into their own in the last two decades." They are entering traditionally male professions, becoming collections agents and security guards on the India-Pakistan border. They are dressing in Western suits in order to appear more "businesslike." Fitness expert Leena Mogre says "the Madonna influence" has caused 40 percent more women in the last year to seek "defined arms, something that was earlier only demanded by men."

Sangeeta Singh, executive director of international accounting firm KPMG, says "economic independence has made women feel more confident about their personal lives. Hence, they are taking more personal decisions or forming their own support networks." Many women in Banda don't have economic independence. And many throughout India still suffer from the prejudice against girls. But if the pink gang is any indication, women across Indian society are indeed "forming their own support networks." Sampat Pal Devi says, "village society in India is loaded against women. [...] Village women need to study and become independent to sort it out themselves." And although their methods may be a little disturbing (thrashing a policeman, for instance), the pink gang is doing exactly that.

India's 'Pink' Vigilante Women [BBC]
Where A Baby Girl Is A Mother's Awful Shame [Guardian]
Macho Girls! [Times of India]

(In case you're wondering, some of the countries with female presidents or prime ministers currently leading are Ireland, New Zealand, Finland, The Philippines, Mozambique, Germany, Liberia, Chile, India and Haiti.)

In any case, Rwanda is making big news since, as of its elections on September 15, the majority of the seats in its Parliament (44 of 80) will be held by women. According to a report in The Economist: "That level of representation—once seldom seen outside Scandinavia—has less to do with an upsurge in feminist thinking than with a law passed in 2003 that guaranteed women 30% of the seats. The aim was to break up 'old boy' networks and help the country make a new start in its first elections since the 1994 genocide."

The UN suggests that even though there are women in politics, they're still lacking in leadership positions. A Latin American study showed that while 47 percent of party members in Paraguay were women, they held just 19 percent of leadership positions. Some of this is sure to be covered in a documentary airing tonight on PBS, titled Women, Power and Politics.

As for the United States of America, where a woman stands in the harbor of New York, welcoming the tired and poor? How many years do you think it will take before we have a woman leading here?

U.N. Study Finds More Women in Politics [NY Times]
Women Rising [Economist]
Cracking the Glass Ceiling, in Rwanda and Elsewhere [NY Times]
Related: Current Female World Leader Count [Filibuster Cartoons]
Earlier: Foreign Minister Is In Position To Be Israel's First Female PM In 34 Years

Wax writes:

Violence against women is the fastest-growing crime in India, a recent study concluded. Every 26 minutes a woman is molested, every 34 minutes a rape takes place, and every 43 minutes a woman is kidnapped, according to the Home Ministry's National Crime Records Bureau.

Women's groups claim only a small percentage of rapes are reported. Interestingly enough, as India celebrates 60 years of independence, Time magazine takes a look at some of the people who are leading the country into its next six decades. And naturally, some of them are women: Mayawati, the politician from the "untouchable" caste; Sunita Narain, an environmentalist; Sonia Gandhi, a popular, Italian-born Catholic who married into a famous family; and Aishwarya Rai, the biggest Bollywood star.

Do successful women in the public eye make it easier or harder for "ordinary" women like Gitanjali Chaudhry (who wants to finish school and be a lawyer, but sometimes stays home when the harassment gets too bad) to find success? Will the male backlash create an atmosphere in which women just give up? And how many males in India are like 21-year-old Raja Kumar, who says, in the Post: "I was never really taught how to act around a girl. I thought teasing was the way to get them to notice me."

In India, New Opportunities for Women Draw Anger and Abuse From Men [Washington Post]
India's Most Influential [Time]

Earlier: Big Deals
Indian Woman Producing Change And Controversy In Equal Amounts

India-based human-rights lawyer D. Geetha estimates that at least 30 of the nearly 400 Indian children brought into Australia in the last 10 to 15 years were trafficked. The Time investigation found dubious agencies, illegal practices, false signatures; stolen children shipped to wealthy countries. The children were processed through an adoption agency and orphanage known as Malaysian Social Services. According to Time, Australian authorities knew that MSS was a suspect agency. Its license was suspended in 1999 after one of its staff was arrested for handling four babies stolen from a hospital.

Here's the problem: The chances of the biological parents reclaiming their children? Slim. Former Australian Family Court Judge John Fogarty says: "I wouldn't like to be acting for the Indian parents. You might get pro-bono lawyers, but the bottom line would be the best interests of the child, and that may be a one-way street. If you compared the position of the child in Australia returning to poverty in India, you would have to be a pretty dramatic judge to send a child back to the slums."

Meanwhile, Zabeen's biological mother would love to see her: "I am yearning," she says. "I must embrace her."

Let's just say for a minute you were an Australian judge. Would you send Zabeen back to her Indian family after eight years? Or would you let her stay with her new parents, who are "horrified" that they unknowingly adopted a trafficked child?

Stolen Children [Time]
Children 'Kidnapped For Aussie Adoption' [News.com.au]
Earlier: In China, Child Kidnappings Are An Equal Opportunity Affair

Mayawati studied in public schools, went to college and planned to be a lawyer. But after a series of anti-caste speeches, another anti-caste activist convinced her to run for office and she did. She won, and worked her way up to the top of her party and is now the head of her state — and the first Dalit member to hold that position. It's widely expected that at some point in the not-so-distant future, her political heft and coalition-building skills could make her the first Dalit Prime Minister of all of India.

Of course, there are problems. She's suddenly rich — and thus accused of graft and corruption. Worse still, it might be true. She's unmarried. She coverted to Buddhism to protest Hinduism's acceptance of the caste system. She's still, after all, a Dalit. But all in all, she is seemingly trying to use her position to force the enforcement of anti-caste laws long on the books, to improve the status given and attention paid to members of lower castes and to try to inspire others that stand in the shoes she was once forced to wear to dream ever-so-slightly bigger than a life of ostracization and drudgery. That's probably why there aren't so many people that care how many rings she wears or statues she has built to herself.

A Daughter of India’s Underclass Rises on Votes That Cross Caste Lines [NY Times]
Lower-Caste Politician A Lofty Symbol in India [Washington Post]

Earlier: Big Deals

• Prestige magazine has the "world exclusive" of the new Agent Provocateur campaign starring Kate Moss. Note the black models featured also in the shoot! They are slightly less prominent, but no worse fed. [Prestige HK]
  
• And look her! The notoriously tight-lipped Kate Moss granted an actual interview to the Guardian! Does she have anything to say for herself? "After a long pause," the story reveals..."Not really." [Guardian]
  
• More "authenticity" from the trailers of the upcoming Sex & The City movie: It was like being in [NY department stores] Bergdorf Goodman and Saks combined. There was an overwhelming amount of branded product...The characters were defined via their wardrobes and the products they used: Carrie, for example, was a creative, fashion-obsessed writer type, so she used an Apple Mac because of its design value and wore all these crazy clothes.... [FT]
  
• "China is about brand, brand, brand." [NYT]
  
• India "is a fast growing economy and with consumption so robust and with incomes rising, it's a fertile ground for the print media." And all the crap Vogue and GQ would like to sell to them! [Reuters]

• Barney's "plans to grow helter-skelter in a bunch of countries." [WSJ]
• "There may be a global economic slowdown, but Valentino is stepping up the pace of its expansion." [WWD]
• Abercrombie & Fitch's flagship store in London grosses sales of $50 million. Holy fuck that is insane. [Fashion Week Daily]
• There's a new book out tracing Estee Lauder spokesmodels, from one who was "picked from more than a thousand faces on the grounds that she possessed 'that indefinable air known as class'" to Aerin Lauder herself. Who possesses a slightly more palpable sort of class. [Telegraph]
• Portfolio calculates "back of the envelope" that Chanel is worth between $10.3 billion and $14.8 billion. This is meaningful, to someone, not us. [Portfolio]

ANNA: A few weeks ago a reader wrote in to me complaining about the items we've
done on women in, specifically, India, saying that she was sick of the fact that we link to the more horrific stories regarding women and girls on the Indian sub-Continent...rape, murder, abuse, etc. The blog post she was upset about regarded a piece in a British paper we linked to about pre-teens selling their virginity to adult men in India in order to financially help their families. The reader referred to our — and by "our" I mean the editors and the commenters — "smug First World selves" and railed against our collective "ignorance" and "condescension". I responded to her saying that I understood where she was coming from but that in terms of stories about women and India, we were strapped: 99% of the stories that concern women that we find coming out of that area of the world are negative and/or upsetting, and we don't even post 90% of THOSE. I added that we work with what we can find, which, in the English language media, is coming either from American news sources, British news sources, or news sources in India that are available in English. We want to acknowledge the problems and horrors faced by women in other countries, but we often get attacked for doing so. What are some tactics that we — and other American, Western media properties — can approach these with more sensitivity?

LATOYA: Ha. I completely understand where she is coming from. Often times, western media tends to promote the things that are sensationalist like teen girls selling their virginity to feed their families or what Ebony magazine termed "disaster pornography" - things like famine, starvation, and suffering that tend to get people to wince and then open their wallets. I can't specifically speak to India, but since I notice this a lot with stories about the African continent. For example, take the elections in Kenya that happened late last year. If you were paying attention, you would know that there was a lot of tension leading up to those elections - so an allegation came in that someone won unfairly and riots broke out. However, when this news was reported, the headline was "Tribal Warfare Breaks Out in Kenya!"

Sensationalist stories grab our attention a lot faster than regular, day in the life stories. It's like the piece with Malawi I posted on last year - the article about how badly the World Bank and donor nations (US) screwed Malawi over in terms of offering them aid money with conditions attached that would keep them dependent on foreign aid dollars. Since people in Malawi were starving, the government made an executive decision to risk losing the money - and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars - and to instead try to save their people from starvation. And they did it! That article got no play, whatsoever. Buried in the world section of the NY Times.

Late last month I read that profile of Madonna in Vanity Fair and saw all of these assertions about Malawi - and by extension Africa - and they rang false to me because of articles and books I had read earlier. And the article Madonna/Vanity Fair had all kinds of biased reporting - saying Africa when it really meant one specific country, asserting that Africans practice witchcraft when most Africans are Christian or Muslim, saying AIDS is killing the continent but never discussing how things like cuts to international family planning funds, the global gag rule, and allowing faith based programs to use development dollars to take their "abstinence only" ideas overseas. But, as many of my readers pointed out, they would have never made the connections from one thing to the other; since we have all been fed the idea that Africa is poor just because, we never question things like asking WHY African nations are so indebted or WHY AIDS is still spreading at alarming rates. We would just rather fill in our assumptions and keep reading about Madge's new album.

So part of the battle is asking the question "Why?" You'd be surprised at where that will lead you.

It's important that we begin to familiarize ourselves with international policy and politics. Keep in mind, when we read newspapers and other forms of media, there are subconsciously things that we skip - things that don't really pertain to our lives and don't make sense to us. Keep in mind, I read most of the same news sources you do. But the things I read make more sense to me because I acquired some background knowledge on some of the more intimidating topics.

Finally, realize that things aren't always death, destruction and horror - those are just the discussions that jump out at us the most. Over the last month, I've read articles about the development going on in African nations that revolve around technology. The NYT Magazine did a great article on Jan Chipchase who studies human behavior for Nokia and goes into developing nations to figure out how to sell them cell phones. Fast Company just published a piece on how Google is moving to create an internet presence in Africa, even though only 5% of people have access to internet. They feel it will be a huge growth project. Another business magazine talked about how the internet played a huge role in the rise of India's development - by mastering English, the population has been able to take advantage of the lucrative outsourcing market. And they also discussed the rise of cities and changes in traditional culture, as well as how "call center culture" has launched chick-lit novels and movies and the new prototype of the young urban Indian professional. So there is tons of information out there in mainstream media sources - we just tend to overlook it.

ANNA: I hear you on this. I think what I keep coming back to is 1. Issues of
time (we don't have the luxury of time to educate ourselves as broadly and quickly as we'd
like - blogging is quick business!) and 2. Women-specific issues (most of the stories we find regarding women are negative in nature because women around the world are, for the most part, not treated very well.). But here are some other questions: Is it "disaster pornography" to pick up on the stories written by actual, mainstream media outlets about the plight(s) of women around the world? Do we have to ALWAYS ALWAYS question them, at least those that seem pretty clear-cut? Why can't 12-year-old girls selling their virginity in India just be what it is, which is — to many cultures — horrific? Why CAN'T people put value judgments on such things sometimes without being accused of being colonialist, paternalistic, patronizing...even racist? And lastly, what do you think the inherent problems are with Westerners reporting back from non-Western countries, particularly on women's issues? Can a white, European woman living and working the Mideast never tell the full "truth" of her adopted society because of her background? Can an Asian-American woman in, say, South Africa not do the same? And lastly, because so many areas of the world (particularly the female populations in those areas) are in need of support, both financially and politically, what is so wrong with getting people to wince and open their wallets, particularly in an era in which superficial shit like celebrity adulation is so rampant that we have pageant contestants calling Iraq "the Iraq" and a decline in newspaper and book readership?

LATOYA: Anna, you have to understand that those excuses are just that - excuses. Here's why I say that - you all are great (seriously, fucking great) at calling out sexist assumptions about women in the media. You read an article and can instantly pick up on all the bullshit buzzwords and baseless assumptions that someone has concocted to prove their points about women being weaker/less intelligent/more emotional, etc. It's second nature to you, right? But I bet it wasn't always that way. You have to educate yourself about these issues in order to have that framework in your mind to challenge them. So the same way you learned to critically dissect the lies that women's magazines use to sell issues - it's the same thing. No one wakes up with a working knowledge of sexism, power dynamics in sexual relationships, eloquent critiques of impossible beauty ideals and a deep understanding about how strict adherence to gender roles in society causes tons of issues. You had to learn that.

So, in this case, the answer is learn. You aren't going to be able to fully comprehend everything about everything out of the box. Like I said in one of my posts on Racialicious, it took me about three months to stop fighting against the mass media programming that poorer nations are just a bunch of whiny complainers who want to be like America. So it will take a while.

Women are treated like shit around the world, this is very true. Women are also treated like shit in beacon of freedom America, particularly when you start considering issues like race, class, and immigration. But, just like there are kick ass things American women do every day, there are kick ass things that women around the world are doing too.

But to specifically answer your questions:

1. Yes, we always have to question because if we don't, we contribute to that whole narrative that the US is this great paragon of equality and every place else is some kind of human cesspool. Again, back to the Madonna/Malawi example - you could post on "starving babies in Malawi" and people go "oh no!" because that's what they are conditioned to do and we go buy a $24.00 bracelet that sends a dollar overseas, we mention about the horrendous situation there with our friends over cocktails and then roll right back into whatever stuff is affecting us right this minute. And no one talks about the World Bank, which is the leading reason why kids in Malawi are starving to death, and business moves as usual.

I am not saying that every other nation has no problems and nothing bad ever happens. But, it is kind of strange when we can post about the horrible shit that goes on in say, Italy (like your post on how 70% of Italian gynos refuse to perform abortions, even though they are legal) and have counterposts talking about cool/interesting things like how the Italian police department petitioned for more fashionable uniforms or the issues with modern dating in Italy. It provides a balanced view of the country. But that kind of balanced view never manages to make it over to African or South East Asian countries. So while we can read the literature and watch the movies coming out of those countries - there has to be SOMETHING else going on, some kind of larger social/cultural scene that is creating these works of art and lit - for some reason, our news reporting pretends that the only time they are worthy of our notice is when someone is suffering or something horrendous goes down. The answer is not to stop reporting on these events completely - just to be aware that these events do not exist in a vaccuum.

2. Value judgments are a tricky thing. In general, there is a problem with people conflating two separate issues and making them one. So, for example, let's take the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I think we can all generally agree that it is fucked up when some citizens are entitled to more rights than others based solely on gender, and that's what Saudi Arabia does. However, the problems come in when people start sticking blanket value judgments that don't necessarily apply to that situation - like saying Islam is responsible for the situation in Saudi Arabia. Umm, no. Some fuckheads in power got together and said this is how it's going down and we're going to justify it using Islam. There are 52 nations that are Muslim Majority countries and that's not how they roll. Look at Turkey - it is a nation that is 99% Muslim. 99%! And they have a very secular government system. Malaysia, Ethiopia, Morocco, Indonesia, Bangledesh - plenty of nations are Muslim and they have different systems set up. But people tend to stick one issue in because that's what they think that is what is happening and miss the bigger picture.

Fatemeh, the publisher of the Muslimah Media Watch blog also points out how condescending it is to want to "help" women in a foreign country without listening to them. We tend to infantilize them (example here) and act as those these poor poor women don't have minds of their own and can't speak for themselves, never realizing that they are actively engaging in these issues - just not necessarily where we can see. From the little I know about Muslimah feminism, people who still actively adhere to Islamic principles tend to work within those guidelines while fighting for equality. Our idea of equality may not be the same as what they want. So, for western people, it's a really big fucking deal if Muslim women take off their veils and wear lipstick. To them, it's kind of whatever, they want to focus on employment options and pay equality.

3. In terms of wincing and wallets, let me just say that there is nothing wrong with being informed. The problem is that we respond, crack the wallet, and we aren't informed. So who knows where the money is going and what it is being used for? Think about it this way - we give out billions of dollars in foreign food aid per year - so why haven't we solved world hunger yet? We waste enough food in America to feed quite a few nations, so the issue is more complicated than just food. We need to critically look at where this money is going and who is benefiting. There are also great ways to get involved that don't involve much money and make a longer lasting impact. Want to end hunger? Start lobbying congress, volunteering with NGOs, raise awareness about how the IMF is "the Typhoid Mary" of international development. (Yes, Jeffrey Sachs' said that — read this sitting down.) Or, looking at how governmental organizations and non governmental organizations have tons of money but can't seem to get it together do fix actual problems, even when said problems could be fixed for about $10,000 (see here). So, there are steps to take that would be more helpful in the long run but people just don't ask questions.

By the way, westerners can report on non-western issues, as can expats living in other countries. The issue is not that they are not entitled to have an opinion, it is just that many times that opinion may be ill-informed and may not have the whole story. So, I think western journalists in particular have an obligation to tread lightly in areas that are not directly our own - after all, since we shape of lot of world policy, our words may have serious consequences.

Related: Meet The Neo-Colonialists: Madonna And Vanity Fair [Racialicious]

MOE: So I just had a thought. A strategist on Fox News used the word "fulcrum" and it completely tripped up the blonde, who was like, "I'm still fascinated by that word you used Rich, fulcrum." And then the other guy was like, "Yeah, fulcrum what the heck does that mean?" And the strategist laughed
MOE: And said, "It's physics, Bob, it has to do with the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum."
MOE: Which is not a law I particularly remember but it gave me this theory: I think that smart people become Republicans to feel smarter than all their friends.
MEGAN: Whoa, he even quoted that? I think today is a Big Word day because David Axelrod just used the word "potentate" on MSNBC talking about leaders in the Middle East and OPEC.

MEGAN: Okay, and now Joe Scarborough just called Tim Daly the Grand Poobah of the Creative Coalition.
MOE: What does that even mean?

MEGAN: Not that it's a definitive source, but Wiki says

Grand Poobah is a term derived from the name of the haughty character Pooh-Bah in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. In this comic opera, Pooh-Bah holds numerous exalted offices, including Lord Chief Justice, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Master of the Buckhounds, Lord High Auditor, Groom of the Back Stairs, and Lord High Everything Else. The name has come to be used as a mocking title for someone self-important or high-ranking and who either exhibits an inflated self-regard, who acts in several capacities at once, or who has limited authority while taking impressive titles.

MOE: Hahaha so it's a more appropriate name for an MC than I knew when I began immediately associating it with this awesome party jam...
MEGAN: Dude, that guy on the TV sorta looks like Kid from Kid N Play...
MOE: Oh dude speaking of amazing segues, apparently Grand Puba holds Nation Of Islam beliefs. Which brings me to Michelle Obama, of whom we now know the same thing thanks to the Grand Puba of paranoid indiscriminate hateration. We should totally form a Hitchens-inspired hip-hop collective. I know some rappers who would dig it. We would get on Stuffwhitepeoplelike IMMEDIATELY.

MEGAN: Oh, Christ, Hitchens takes so fucking long to get to the point, which is him calling Barack, basically, pussy-whipped. Which, obviously, any man that doesn't indiscriminately cheat on his long-suffering wife the way Hitchens does obviously is.
MEGAN: Did I ever mention that I once watched Hitchens leave a party with a really pretty 18 year old? She might've been 20. She had some crazy hero-worship in her eyes, but I'll bet he sweatily fucked that out of her with his stale cigarette smell and tiny British ween.
MOE: Man I was checking TheRoot for some response to the Hitch and the lead story is on "Why The Summer Of '88 Was My Generation's Greatest." The late eighties were so rad in a lot of ways, I'm just remembering. The End of History and the like. But it was also, like, one of the bleakest eras for American cities, which I kind of think represent the future of American pluralism, which apparently Michelle Obama didn't believe in in 1985, which is why we are now wondering if she isn't a radical bitterfascist.

MOE: And that is a very good read on the situation. I was honestly disgusted he chose to go after her fucking college thesis which is basically about how alienated and inferior she felt on account of all the elitist assholes at Princeton.
MOE: And he writes:

To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.

MOE: Which is true of most academic papers.
MEGAN: Man, I sort of wish I could've written about that for my college thesis. I had to write about the role of ideology in determining women's status in the labor market in Germany before and after reunification.
MOE: But not even of hers.
MOE: I dropped out, yay. I don't think I wrote a decent paper ever in my life after my treatise on the collapse of the Weimar Republic in tenth grade. After that it was all an alcohol haze. I wrote some good stories for the Journal that were better researched than any of my papers, however.
MEGAN: I picked a graduate school based on where I didn't have to write another thesis, which is why I ended up chucking my completed SAIS application in the garbage rather than sending it.

MOE: : This was Christian's take on Hitchens which sort of nicely unpeels the layers of disingenuousness:

What he's really saying is, I, the Hitch, know that people must necessarily allow contradictions into their lives, especially politicians, who typically do so cynically, but I am cynical enough myself to pretend that I don't know that, and so I can write a column that honestly admits that Obama really has nothing in common with his Reverend (did I mention that I, the Hitch, hate all churchees—I know politicians are only pandering to them, but it's fun to pretend they're not) but that his wife is a menace.
7:14 PM asserts that his wife is a menace anyway.

MEGAN: Also, I am not going to click that again because it is more than I can handle imagining Hitch having his taint waxed AND NOW I HAVE IMAGINED IT AGAIN and I think I might hate you a little, give me a second to wash the taste of bile out of my mouth and then let's change the subject.
MEGAN: Here, let's talk about Clinton saying that OPEC can no long be allowed to exist so she's going to file a WTO complaint even though, like, she's not so keen on free trade policies or something and I'm pretty sure there's no way it would succeed.
MOE: Ah, yeah so there is a bill to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.
MOE: God, remember the fucking Sherman Act?

MEGAN: Which means, what? That we won't buy oil from OPEC anymore? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
MOE: Well, if the Heritage Foundation and major trade unions can agree on something...

Indeed, the only serious challenge to the organization came in 1978 when a U.S. non-profit labor association, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), sued OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in IAM v. OPEC. But the case was rejected in 1981 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OPEC, the court affirmed, could not be prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign immunity protection it claimed for its member states. That decision was wrong. Government-owned companies that engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines

MOE: Apparently the effort was led by William "Wimpy" Wimpsinger. I like that he took that "wimp thing" and sort of owned it. Do you think Hitchens cynically wants the Clintons back because it makes his job easier?

I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.

MEGAN: Wait, so white man Christopher Hitchens would like Black America to know that the Obamas will... what exactly? Betray them like the Clintons? I think this is why I only read stuff he writes about him waxing his back, sack and crack.
MOE: Oh man hip-hop reference segue time #2 of the morning. Let's give a shout-out to Khia. Dude, the Hitchens inspired DJ collective is a total gold idea. I know these dudes Plastic Little who could get into it. They're biracial like Obama. But I think we've gotta address the notion of Burma, and how this cyclone hit just as Hollywood celebs were getting in on the action.
MEGAN: So, am I right that the appropriately white guilty thing to do is not talk about the oppressive government for a bit?
MOE: Here's the latest "That's So Jane's!" on the matter, God I love this graphic...Apparently you likened Burma to Katie Holmes.
MEGAN: Oppression shows its face in all kinds of dark ways.
MOE:

It's an Orwellian nightmare that makes China look like a liberal paradise by comparison. For twenty years there has been nothing on this scale and when protests have been staged they have been in the order of hundreds and have been easily dealt with. The monks posed a huge dilemma for the military since they initially felt that they could not simply resort to smashing skulls and opening fire indiscriminately. Buddhists believe that what you do in this life will determine how you come back next time. So massacring a few monks is more likely to see you come back as a cockroach than achieving nirvana.

MEGAN: Well, but they'll be born in China or India more often than not, so it's like they get reborn into a less oppressive regime?
MOE: Okay here's another thing. The last sentence of that Times story.

If you talk to Vaclav Havel, he'll say that Lou Reed's support for human rights in Czechoslovakia was very important to the cause."

MEGAN: Um, I guess the cool factor is really important?

MEGAN: But neither Ellen Page or Jim Carrey is Lou Reed.
MOE: Okay so there's a primary tonight and I'm sick of primary nights but I suppose we ought to address it. Hillary Clinton will win in Indiana because she's "not going to put my lot in with economists." Obama will win North Carolina because Petey Pablo is from there. Oh man, hip-hop foray part III. Do you remember when Petey Pablo did that remix of "North Carolina" on the USA after 9/11? I'm sure you won't, but some commenter might. I think he also went to Afghanistan. Okay. Any predictions?
MOE: Terry McAuliffe is on Fox right now. His prediction is that "people will be saying she did better in both states than they thought she would." Jesus Christ.
MEGAN: I predict me and a lovely bottle of Petite Sirah will be blogging it tonight for Glamocracy. And that I hate being wrong so I don't make predictions but it does seem like the polls are saying that Hillary will take Indiana and Obama will take NC.
MEGAN: Whoa, talk about managing expectations there, Terry Boy. I didn't think the polls in Indiana were that close, plus she's been standing in pickup trucks! Pickup trucks are like electoral gold in Indiana.
MOE: I'm going to leave us with a passage from David Brooks, because I found it calming, sort of like certain candidates.

This wasn't just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn't going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn't going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one's own....But, as Sunday's contrast made clear, Obama still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives.He wasn't fully candid when answering questions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but there are some inner guardrails that prevent the spin from drifting too far from the truth. Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn't seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong. Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria.

The vile attitude toward dark skin is reflected in the way the cosmetic companies market these products. The TV commercials for Fair And Handsome feature men who are sad outcasts and can't get women because they're too dark. Just a little cream and the ladies swoon over their new, light complexion!

Ages and ages ago, there was a time when darkness, as a concept, was not evil. Darkness was the night, the soil, the strongest trees, the womb. Mysterious but nourishing, alive, full of power. White was for death and sickness. Thousands of years later, civilization, slavery, societal hierarchies, xenophobia, fear of disease and ignorance have flipped the script, so to speak. All too often, around the world — including in this country — black is bad. (Please refresh your memory with this video by Kiri Davis, in which young children point to identical black and white dolls and proclaim the white doll "good" and the black doll "bad." It's a 2006 recreation of a 1950s test, with similar results.) I wish I didn't have to keep typing these same words over and over again, but here goes: This is the same reason we counted the number of black models on the fashion week runways and look for black models in fashion magazines. If the world around you reminds you every day that your skin tone is neither fashionable nor desirable, how can you be expected to think otherwise?

In India, Fairness Is A Growth Industry [Washington Post]
Related: Fair And Handsome commercial [AOL Video]
Fair And Handsome commercial [You Tube]
Fair And Lovely commercial (Moral: No matter how good an actress you are, you can't be a star unless your skin is pale!) [Daily Motion]
A Girl Like Me [Google Video]
Earlier: Can One Woman Make A Difference? Maybe, If She Works For A Global Beauty Company
Indian Women Whiten Their Skin, Fight The Patriarchy
Study:Men Are More Attracted To Women With Lighter Skin
Skin Deep
Modeling Matriarch Continues To Demand Diversity On The Runways
Is Prada To Blame For the Lack Of Black Models?

Gadkari is referring to legislation that makes the Giuliani regime look tame: the closing of all public places where dancing takes place in Mumbai. And while many Indians like Gadkari find themselves assaulted by what they perceive to be a crass performance of sexuality which stands in affront to their own culture, the cheerleaders, flown in from everywhere from the Eastern Bloc to the Midwest, have themselves become the victims of harassment from those who see them as cheap and vulgar exploiters of their culture.

Girija Vya, chairperson of Indian's National Commission for Women says, "I find nothing wrong with the concept if it is just for adding entertainment element to the game. It has to be presented in the right manner keeping the Indian values intact. I think we should promote our culture by bringing folk dancers and musicians in these matches. We have so much variety in our culture, dresses that after some point of time foreign countries will start imitating us." And yet one Indian housewife poses the following question regarding the new addition to the country's national pastime, "What is the purpose of this display?"

Good question. What is the purpose of cheerleaders at any sport, whether it's cricket in India or football here in the U.S.? Can sports where women are still not allowed to compete alongside men exist without women cheering on the sidelines for the men at play? Maybe the outrage in India will spark some soul-searching amongst sports commissioners here in the U.S. as well.

U.S.-Style Cheerleaders Shake Indian Cricket [MSNBC]
Cheerleaders OK If Properly Presented [Times of India]